Naphtali Jones

Tell me about it!

Actually this realization was one of the biggest factors in my deconversion. I believed that even though we were not under the burden of the law anymore, those laws should still be basically good if they came from God. When I realized how horrible these laws were I rejected the entire Bible outright. Attempting to convince others of this, however, has only led to comments like the ones fromdownunder has provided.

Tigers!

Why are you posing as a Christian? Have you something to hide?

QRUEL

I would strongly disagree... perhaps you should read about the christian reconstructionist movement....quite a few followers who would like to restore OT laws in our current time... and all the christians i know love to pick and choose what to take from the OT as long as it is convienent to their worldview

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christi...onstructionist

Spenser

No, I am there as me as well. Mostly to prove a point to myself in the way they treat on handle as opposed to the other merely from the choice of being atheist over Christian. It is not like here where we might ferociously attack a Christians arguments (though some here are rude), a lot of them over there, professed Christians, are extremely rude. Point in case, the have this thing called reputation in which posters can add or take away from your reputation. Only you get to see the comments as to why, well today I discovered some anonymouse Xian called me an idiot dick.

The place reeks of hypocrisy and if they question a bad bible quote it would indeed prove they do think the quote bad. Yet there are so many inerrantists over there. Don't get me wrong, most Xians are cool that I have come across in like, but the fundies over there are total hypocrites...

Why, you gonna rat me out?

yalla

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=161985

Check this thread out for some ideas.

Not-For-Prophet

I like to hear them trying to explain away this bit of Levictus, where their god tells them not to let those nasty, offensive crippled or sick people give the sacrament, profane the santuary by entering it or profane his alters by coming to close to them.

gstafleu

OK, but isn't that a legitimate point to raise in itself? I'm assuming we're talking here about Christians who see the bible as inerrant. Don't they pretty much have to put some sort of good spin on these passages. And if they can't, what does that say about inerrancy?

Of course some christians may drop inerrancy. Fine, but that opens the floodgates of cherry picking. At that point you can just ignore what you don't like, and that basically voids any discussions.

As for the spin that fromdownunder mentioned, we now have a new covenant, I don't think that that new covenant is seen as repealing the old one. It is more of an addition. This does, for any one who actually reads both covenants, pose some sticky problems of inconsistency (maybe from all that cherry juice ). But that again is a good issue to raise. Excuses like "The OT doesn't count anymore, don't pay attention to the text behind the curtain" just don't cut it.

EthnAlln

As others have pointed out, fundy Christians pretend the OT doesn't count whenever it puts them in a bind; otherwise, they are happy to use it to flog the secular society around them.

So, using the NT only, you probably need mostly the words attributed (rightly or wrongly) to Saint Paul, such as Romans, Chapter 13: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers [i.e., civil authorities]. For there is no power but of God, the powers that be are ordained of God. [But God must have changed his mind and ordained a succession of other powers in Christian countries since Paul wrote those words.] Whosoever, therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." Well, that's hardly a ringing endorsement of the open, democratic society, is it? It explicitly says *all* power (including Hitler, Stalin, the Tsar, the Kaiser, etc., etc.) is ordained by God, and everyone's duty is to obey.

But, as with the OT, Christians are willing to say Paul was only human and could be wrong, when it suits them to do so, then turn around and lambaste society for not following Paul's dicta in other areas. You really need some words attributed directly to Christ. There are plenty of such words, especially the many references to infinite punishment by fire in all four Gospels. Also, much that he supposedly said is clearly the ranting of a megalomaniac, such as in Matthew, Chapter 11: "Woe unto thee, Chorazin! Woe unto thee Bethsaida; for if the mighty works which were don in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes, But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which are exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell." Here once again, Christians will brush it off, saying that Jesus really was a great as he said, and this was only realistic judgment. (Some judgment. I do wonder how a city is to be punished and brought down to hell. He must have meant the people living in the city. But they are long since gone, and the city is now only an archaeological site. Curious....)

Nuwanda

First off, I think the fact that you are posing as both yourself and as a Christian in some other blog is both devious and brilliant at the same time. I would try it myself but being a follower of Christ for 14 years I don't need anymore convincing that many Christians are incredibly hypocritical.

You're right, those are legitimate points to raise. Others have brought up that arguing the OT v. the NT is a bogus argument but it actually is the pivital point to understanding Christianity. If the Old Law could make anyone perfect then we were in no need of another Covenant. Did God fail with His first Covenant? No. It was supposed to be, as Paul said, a school master to bring us to Christ that we might be justified by faith, now that faith has come we are no longer in need of a school master" (Gal 3:24,25).

The point of the Old Law was to demonstrate that man could never be perfect through his own effort. That is the whole story of the gospel. Christ made a way where there was no way by becoming the perfect sacrifice for sin. Now, there can no longer be any sacrifice for sin, hence the law no longer governs mankind. However, there is plenty in the OT that has nothing to do with the law - majority of the prophetic books, historical books, etc.

By the way, this is a huge summary of it all and much, much more could be said. To simply nail a Christian with any random OT scripture does no good in discouraging them.

Nuwanda

Now this is a good one to use. I'll admit, it's tuff to understand that Paul, around the same time as Emperor Nero, would say to submit to the state. But, keep reading the passage, "rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you" (Rom 13:3). 13:6 brings out the point he was alluding to, "This is why you pay taxes... give everyone what you owe him..." (7).

In otherwords, just because you claim allegence to God don't ignore your civic duty. This is good news for the secularist, not bad news. You have Biblical precedence to keep those nasty Christians in line.

Plus, you are under obligation to a government who rewards the good and punishes evil. If your government is not this, you have a duty to resist in the most civil way possible (that's my interp). A great Christian philosopher on this subject is Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who gave a reason to resist Nazi power during WWII.